by Riazanovsky
Canada rather than those in warmer Iowa or Illinois. Russia, on the other hand, is fabulously rich in forests, more so than any other country in the world. And it possesses a great wealth and variety of natural resources, ranging from platinum to oil and from coal to gold. On the whole, however, these resources remained unused and even unexplored for a very long time.
Ever since Herodotus historians have been fascinated by the role of geographic factors in human history. Indeed the father of history referred to the broad sweep of the southern Russian steppe and to the adaptation of the steppe inhabitants, the Scythians, to their natural environment in his explanation of why the mighty Persians could not overcome them. Modern historians of Russia, including such leading Russian scholars as Kliuchevsky and especially his teacher S. Soloviev, as well as such prominent Western writers as Kerner and Sumner, have persistently emphasized the significance of geography for Russian history. Even if we reject the rigid determinism implicit in some of their views and refuse to speculate on such nebulous and precarious topics as the Russian national character and its dependence on the environment - speculations in which Kliuchevsky and others engaged in a fascinating manner - some fundamental points have to be made.
For instance, it appears certain that the growth of the Russian state was affected by the geography of the area: a vast plain with very few natural obstacles to expansion. This setting notably made it easier for the Moscow state to spread across eastern Europe. Beyond the Urals, the Russians advanced all the way to the Pacific, and even to Alaska and California, a progression paralleled only by the great American movement west. As the boundaries of the Russian empire ultimately emerged, they consisted of oceans to the north and east and, in large part, of seas, high mountains, and deserts to the south; only in the west, where the Russians merged with streams of other peoples, did the border seem unrelated to geography. The extremely severe climate contributed to the weakness of the tribes scattered in northern European Russia and of the various inhabitants of Siberia, leading to their utter inability to stem the Russian advance. Whereas the Russians could easily expand, they were well protected from outside attack. Russian distances brought defeat to many, although not all, invaders, from the days of the Persians and the Scythians to those of Napoleon and Hitler.
Occupied territory had to be governed. The problem of administering an enormous area, of holding the parts together, of co-ordinating local activities and efforts remained a staggering task for those in power, whether Ivan the Terrible, Nicholas I, or Stalin. And the variety of peoples on the great plain was bound to make such issues as centralization and federation all the more acute. One can appreciate, if not accept, the opinion of those thinkers, prominent in the Enlightenment and present in other periods, who related
the system of government of a country directly to its size and declared despotism to be the natural form of rule in Russia.
The magnificent network of Russian rivers and lakes also left its mark on Russian history. It is sufficient to mention the significance of the Dnieper for Kievan Russia, or of the Volga and its tributaries for the Moscow state. The landlocked position of the country and the search for an access to the waterways of the world made the Russians repeatedly concerned with the Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Straits. Climate and vegetation basically affected the distribution of people in Russia and also their occupations. The poor quality of much agricultural land has led to endemic suffering among Russian peasants and has taxed the ingenuity of tsarist ministers and Khrushchev alike. Russian natural resources, since they began to be developed on a large scale, have added immeasurably to Soviet strength. Both the wealth of Russia and the geographic and climatic obstacles to a utilization of this wealth have perhaps never stood out so sharply as today.
The location of Russia on its two continents has had a profound impact on Russian history. The southern Russian steppe in particular served for centuries as the highway for Asiatic nomads to burst into Europe. Mongol devastation was for the Russians only the most notable incident in a long series, and it was followed by over two hundred years of Mongol rule. In effect, the steppe frontier, open for centuries, contributed hugely to the militarization of Russian society, a trend reinforced by the generally unprotected and fluid nature of the western border of the country. But proximity to Asiatic lands led also to some less warlike contacts; furthermore, it enabled Russia later in turn to expand grandly in Asia without the need first to rule the high seas. Recently the Eurasian school of historians, represented in the English language especially by Vernadsky, has tried to interpret the entire development of Russia in terms of its unique position in the Old World.
Russian location in Europe may well be regarded as even more important than its connections with Asia. Linked to the West by language, religion, and basic culture, the Russians nevertheless suffered the usual fate of border peoples: invasion from the outside, relative isolation, and retardation. Hence, at least in part, the efforts to catch up, whether by means of Peter the Great's reforms or the Five-Year Plans. Hence also, among other things, the interminable debate concerning the nature and the significance of the relationship between Russia and the West.
As the examples above, which by no means exhaust the subject, indicate, geography does affect history, Russian history included. It has been noted that the influence of certain geographic factors tends to be especially persistent. Thus, while our modern scientific civilization does much to mitigate
the impact of climate, a fact brilliantly illustrated in the development of such a northern country as Finland, so far we have not changed mountains into plains or created new seas. Still, it is best to conclude with a reservation: geography may set the stage for history; human beings make history.
II
RUSSIA BEFORE THE RUSSIANS
We have only to study more closely than has been done the antiquities of South Russia during the period of migrations, i.e., from the fourth to the eighth century, to become aware of the uninterrupted evolution of Iranian culture in South Russia through these centuries… The Slavonic state of Kiev presents the same features… because the same cultural tradition - I mean the Graeco-Iranian - was the only tradition which was known to South Russia for centuries and which no German or Mongolian invaders were able to destroy.
ROSTOVTZEFF
Yes, we are Scythians. Yes, we are Asiatics. With slanting and greedy eyes.
BLOK
Continuity is the very stuff of history. Although every historical event is unique, and every sequence of events, therefore, presents flux and change, it is the connection of a given present with its past that makes the present meaningful and enables us to have history. In sociological terms, continuity is indispensable for group culture, without which each new generation of human beings would have had to start from scratch.
Non-Slavic Peoples and Cultures
A number of ancient cultures developed in the huge territory that was to be enclosed within the boundaries of the U.S.S.R. Those that flourished in Transcaucasia and in Central Asia, however, exercised merely a peripheral influence on Russian history, the areas themselves becoming parts of the Russian state only in the nineteenth century. As an introduction to Russian history proper, we must turn to the northern shore of the Black Sea and to the steppe beyond. These wide expanses remained for centuries on the border of the ancient world of Greece, Rome, and Byzantium. In fact, through the Greek colonies that began to appear in southern Russia from the seventh century before Christ and through commercial and cultural contacts in general, the peoples of the southern Russian steppe participated in classical civilization. Herodotus himself, who lived in the fifth century b.c., spent some time in the Greek colony of Olbia at the mouth of the Bug river and left us a valuable description of the steppe area and its population. Herodotus' account and other scattered and scarce contemporary evidence
have been greatly augmented by excavations pursued first in tsarist Russia and subsequently, on an increased scale, in the Soviet Union. At
present we know, at least in broad outline, the historical development of southern Russia before the establishment of the Kievan state. And we have come to appreciate the importance of this background for Russian history.
The best-known neolithic culture in southern Russia evolved in the valleys
of the Dnieper, the Bug, and the Dniester as early as the fourth millennium before Christ. Its remnants testify to the fact that agriculture was then already entrenched in that area, and also to a struggle between the sedentary tillers of the soil and the invading nomads, a recurrent motif in southern Russian, and later Russian, history. This neolithic people also used domestic animals, engaged in weaving, and had a developed religion. The "pottery of spirals and meander" links it not only to the southern part of Central Europe, but also and especially, as Rostovtzeff insisted, to Asia Minor, although a precise connection is difficult to establish. At about the same time a culture utilizing metal developed in the Kuban valley north of the Caucasian range, contemporaneously with similar cultures in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Its artifacts of copper, gold, and silver, found in numerous burial mounds, testify to the skill and taste of its artisans. While the bronze age in southern Russia is relatively little known and poorly represented, that of iron coincided with, and apparently resulted from, new waves of invasion and the establishment of the first historic peoples in the southern Russian steppe.
The Cimmerians, about whom our information is very meager, are usually considered to be the earliest such people, again in large part thanks to Herodotus. They belonged to the Thracian subdivision of the Indo-European language family and ruled southern Russia from roughly 1000 B.c. to 700 b.c. At one time their dominion extended deep into the Caucasus. Recent historians have generally assumed that the Cimmerians represented the upper crust in southern Russia, while the bulk of the population consisted of indigenous elements who continued the steady development of culture on the northern shore of the Black Sea. The ruling group was to change several times during the subsequent centuries without destroying this fundamental cultural continuity.
The Scythians followed the Cimmerians, defeating them and destroying their state. The new invaders, who came from Central Asia, spoke an Iranian tongue and belonged thus to the Indo-European language family, although they apparently also included Mongol elements. They ruled southern Russia from the seventh to the end of the third century b.c. The Scythian sway extended, according to a contemporary, Herodotus, from the Danube to the Don and from the northern shore of the Black Sea inland for a distance traveled in the course of a twenty-day journey. At its greatest extent, the Scythian state stretched south of the Danube on its western flank and across the Caucasus and into Asia Minor on its eastern.
The Scythians were typical nomads: they lived in tentlike carriages dragged by oxen and counted their riches by the number of horses, which also served them as food. In war they formed excellent light cavalry, utilizing the saddle and fighting with bows and arrows and short swords. Their military tactics based on mobility and evasion proved so successful that
even their great Iranian rivals, the mighty Persians, could not defeat them in their home territory. The Scythians established a strong military state in southern Russia and for over three centuries gave a considerable degree of stability to that area. Indigenous culture continued to develop, enriched by new contacts and opportunities. In particular, in spite of the nomadic nature of the Scythians themselves, agriculture went on flourishing in the steppe north of the Black Sea. Herodotus who, in accordance with the general practice, referred to the entire population of the area as Scythian, distinguished, among other groups, not only "the royal Scythians," but also "the Scythian ploughmen."
The Scythians were finally defeated and replaced in southern Russia by the Sarmatians, another wave of Iranian-speaking nomads from Central Asia. The Sarmatian social organization and culture were akin to the Scythian, although some striking differences have been noted. Thus, while both peoples fought typically as cavalry, the Sarmatians used stirrups and armor, lances, and long swords in contrast to the light equipment of the Scythians. What is more important is that they apparently had little difficulty in adapting themselves to their new position as rulers of southern Russia and in fitting into the economy and the culture of the area. The famous Greek geographer Strabo, writing in the first century A.D., mentions this continuity and in particular observes that the great east-west trade route through the southern Russian steppe remained open under the Sarmatians. The Sarmatians were divided into several tribes of which the Alans, it would seem, led in numbers and power. The Ossetians of today, a people living in the central Caucasus, are direct descendants of the Alans. The Sarmatian rule in southern Russia lasted from the end of the third century b.c. to the beginning of the third century a.D.
It was during the Scytho-Sarmatian period that the Graeco-Iranian culture developed on the northern shore of the Black Sea and in the Russian steppe. The Iranian element was represented in the first place by the Scythians and the Sarmatians themselves. They established large and lasting military states which provided the basic pattern of political organization for the area. They brought with them their languages, their customs, their religion emphasizing war, an original style in decorative art known as the Scythian animal style, and generally vigorous and varied art and craftsmanship, especially in metalwork. The enormously rich Greek civilization came to the area primarily through Greek colonies. These colonies began as fishing enterprises and grew into major commercial centers and flourishing communities. They included the already mentioned Olbia, founded as early as the middle of the seventh century b.c., Chersonesus in the Crimea near present-day Sevastopol, Tanais at the mouth of the Don, and Panticapaeum and Phanagoria on either side of the Strait of Kerch, which links the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea and separates the Crimea and the Caucasus. The
Greeks engaged in varied trade, but especially significant was their importation of southern Russian grain into the Hellenic world. The settlements near the Strait of Kerch, enjoying a particularly favorable position for trade and defense, formed the nucleus of the Bosporan kingdom which was to have a long and dramatic history. That kingdom as well as other Greek centers in southern Russia fell in the first century before Christ under the sway of Mithridates the Great of Pontus and, after his ultimate defeat by the Romans, of Rome. Even after a retrenchment of the Roman Empire and its eventual collapse, some former Greek colonies on the northern shore of the Black Sea, such as Chersonesus, had another revival as outposts of the Byzantine Empire.
Thus for many centuries the Iranians and the Greeks lived and worked side by side. It has been noted that the Scythians and the Sarmatians made no sustained effort to destroy Greek colonies in southern Russia, choosing instead to maintain vigorous trade relations and other contacts with them. Intermarriage, Hellenization of Iranians, and Iranization of Greeks proceeded apace. The resulting cultural and at times political synthesis was such that the two elements became inextricably intertwined. As Rostovtzeff explains in regard to the Bosporan kingdom, a prize example of this symbiosis: "It is a matter of great interest to trace the development of the new community. A loosely knit confederation of cities and tribes in its beginning, it became gradually a political body of dual nature. The ruler of this body was for the Greeks an elected magistrate, for the natives a king ruling by divine right." Today one can readily appreciate some of the sweep and the glory of the ancient Graeco-Iranian culture in southern Russia after visiting the appropriate rooms of the Hermitage or of the historical museum in Moscow.
The Sarmatian rule in the steppe north of the Black Sea was shattered by the Goths. These Germanic invaders came from the north, originally from the Baltic area, reaching out in a southeasterly direction. In southern Russia they split into the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, and the latter eventually established under Hermanric a great state stretching from the Black Sea to the Baltic. But the Gothic period in Russia, dated usually from A.D. 200 to A.D. 370, ended abruptly with the appear
ance of new intruders from Asia, the Huns. Furthermore, while the Goths proved themselves to be fine soldiers and sailors, their general cultural level lagged considerably behind the culture of southern Russia, to which they had little to contribute.
The Huns, who descended upon the Goths around a.D. 370, came in a mass migration by the classic steppe road from Central Asia to southern Russia. A remarkably mixed group when they appeared in European history, the Huns were, on best evidence, a Turkic-speaking people supported by large Mongol and Ugrian contingents. Later, as they swept into central and even western Europe, they also brought with them different Germanic
and Iranian elements which they had overwhelmed and picked up on the way. Although one of the most primitive peoples to come to southern Russia, the Huns had sufficient drive and military prowess to conquer that area and, indeed, to play a key role in the so-called period of great migrations in Europe. Even after their defeat in the battle of Chalons, deep in France, in 451, they invaded Italy and, according to tradition, spared Rome only because of the influence of Pope Leo I on their leader, Attila. But with the sudden death of Attila in 453 the poorly organized Hunnic state crumbled. Its successors included the large horde of the Bulgars and the smaller ones of the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs.
The next human wave to break into southern Russia consisted again of an Asiatic, Mongol- and Turkic-speaking, and relatively primitive people, the Avars. Their invasion is dated a.D. 558, and their state lasted for about a century in Russia and for over two and a half centuries altogether, at the end of which time it dissolved rapidly and virtually without trace, a common fate of fluid, politically rudimentary, and culturally weak nomadic empires. At the height of their power, the Avars ruled the entire area from eastern Russia to the Danubian plain, where they had their capital and where they remained after they had lost control in Russia. Avar armies threatened Byzantium, and they also waged major, although unsuccessful, wars against Charlemagne and his empire.